Skip to main content
Glama
the-events-calendar

The Events Calendar MCP Server

Official
by the-events-calendar
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.6

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct action (create/update, delete, read) on a unified set of entities. There is no overlap or ambiguity; agents can easily distinguish based on the verb.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow the pattern `tec-calendar-<action>-entities` with consistent snake_case. The naming is predictable and clear.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools is minimal but sufficient for the core CRUD operations across four entity types. The scope is well-defined and each tool earns its place, though a dedicated tool for listing or searching could further improve the surface.

    Completeness4/5

    The tools cover create/update, delete, and read (including advanced filtering and pagination) for events, venues, organizers, and tickets. Minor gaps like managing categories or tags exist, but the core lifecycle is solid.

  • Average 4.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under ISC License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies read-only behavior through examples and the tool name, but it does not explicitly state that this tool does not modify data, require specific permissions, or have rate limits. The examples are thorough but lack a clear safety statement.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is well-structured with a clear hierarchy: purpose, use cases, examples, and filter summary. It is front-loaded with essential information. However, it is lengthy due to 15 examples; some could be condensed without losing clarity. Overall, it balances detail and organization well.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers parameter usage comprehensively but is incomplete regarding return values, pagination behavior, and error handling. With no output schema, the agent would benefit from knowing what the response contains.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters5/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100%, yet the description adds significant value by grouping parameters into use cases, providing 15 detailed examples showing valid combinations, and explaining conditional filters (e.g., eventFilters only for events). This greatly enhances parameter understanding beyond the schema.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states 'Read, list, or search calendar posts' and immediately outlines three use cases (get single, list all, search). The tool name 'tec-calendar-read-entities' combined with sibling tools for create-update and delete effectively distinguishes its purpose as read-only.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides clear use cases and example queries that guide when to use each mode (single vs list vs search). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for modifications) or reference sibling tools. The context from sibling names helps, but an explicit exclusion would improve clarity.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior4/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains default recoverable trash vs permanent deletion. Does not mention potential side effects like cascading deletes or access requirements, but is transparent about the core behavior.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Well-structured with headings, bullet points, and examples. Front-loaded with purpose. Some redundancy (Delete Behaviors section repeats prior info), but overall efficient and readable.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Covers behavior for all post types with examples and best practices. Missing details on cascading effects or output format, but given no output schema and simplicity of tool, it is sufficiently complete for an agent.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds value by explaining the force parameter's effect and providing examples for each post type. The examples clarify usage beyond schema definitions.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    Description clearly states the verb (delete or trash) and the resources (Event, Venue, Organizer, Ticket). It distinguishes between default trash and permanent delete, and the name differentiates it from create-update and read siblings.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    Provides best practices (use default trash unless permanent deletion required) and suggests checking post details before deletion. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior4/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: creates/updates events, venues, organizers, tickets; special rules for free tickets (omit price), ticket availability dates, sale pricing, and stock mode. However, it does not mention what the tool returns or any error conditions, which would improve transparency.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Description is long but well-structured with sections, bullet points, and examples. Front-loaded with core purpose. Some repetition across examples, but overall efficient for the complexity. Could be slightly trimmed without loss.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness5/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a tool with 3 parameters (required 2), nested data object, and no output schema, the description is extremely comprehensive: covers creation/update logic, field requirements per type, date formatting, special cases, and provides workflow and multiple examples. Sufficient for correct agent invocation.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters5/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100% but description adds significant meaning: explains required fields per postType, date formats, special cases like free tickets and sale pricing, and provides multiple examples. This goes well beyond the schema's field descriptions.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states 'Create or update a calendar post (Event, Venue, Organizer, or Ticket).' This specifies the verb (create/update) and resource (calendar post types), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools (delete, read).

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines5/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    Explicitly states when to use create vs update based on presence of 'id', provides detailed field requirements per postType, and includes notes on free tickets, availability dates, sale pricing, and unlimited tickets. This provides clear when-to-use guidance.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/the-events-calendar/mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server